Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

IME the ferries (and Eurostar) have exported borders. To go from Dover to Calais, you first go through both British and French passport controls. And the same going the other way.

The difficulty is not with passport checks though.

The difficulty is with customs checks. We can't just wave through freight and cargo from the EU unless we do the same with frieght and cargo arriving from everywhere.

To do so would be a violation of WTO trading terms.

Oh absolutely. I was just responding to a series of posts from Aber specifically relating to people rather than goods.

Yes, the customs system will come under considerable pressure (to put it mildly). Apparently there is a new IT system in the works (which is worrying enough given government "expertise" with large IT systems) which is due to go live around Brexit time.

Reportedly it's able to cope with the expected five-fold increase in customs declarations but I'd take that with a large pinch of salt. Anyone with a lorry park in the Calais or Dover region is going to be doing good business . Likewise anyone in that general area with a burger van...

They made plenty of forecasts about what would happen after a vote to leave but before the leaving process was completed. Mostly wrong.

To prove the claims of the Remain side were "mostly wrong," you will need to tabulate all of them, indicating which - which you claim are the majority - were incorrect. Cherry-picking some isn't good enough.

But not for the Unionists. British Citizens treated as second rate and needing passport and security checks before they can travel to other parts of the UK but free to travel to a foreign country?

Originally Posted by Darat

If that is your evidence then my statement you made it up remains true.

Originally Posted by The Don

^ This.

Whilst the most logistically convenient ways of addressing this would either be Irish reunification or implementing a "hard" border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, politically these would be nonstarters from the unionist perspective and the Conservatives are currently heavily reliant on the support of the DUP.

I'm sure that there are a host of other factors that would need to be considered before establishing an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland including customs union status, adherence to various European laws if goods, services and livestock are to flow freely, and the movement of people and labour, but as I see it, the biggest political hurdle would be the hard border.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

To prove the claims of the Remain side were "mostly wrong," you will need to tabulate all of them, indicating which - which you claim are the majority - were incorrect. Cherry-picking some isn't good enough.

I can't be bothered to do all that work. I stand by my claim though.

If you'd like to do the work and prove by the same method that they were "mostly right" then please, have at it!

It would be a difficult task either way, as first you need some way of enumerating the claims. How do you decide what was a claim, what was not a claim, and what was merely a repeat of an earlier claim expressed in a slightly different way? As these claims/non-claims were made by politicians and their supporters they were often not that clear - there are lots of grey areas.

If you'd like to do the work and prove by the same method that they were "mostly right" then please, have at it!

It would be a difficult task either way, as first you need some way of enumerating the claims. How do you decide what was a claim, what was not a claim, and what was merely a repeat of an earlier claim expressed in a slightly different way? As these claims/non-claims were made by politicians and their supporters they were often not that clear - there are lots of grey areas.

In short: You can't or don't want to corroborate your own extreme claims.

In short: You can't or don't want to corroborate your own extreme claims.

You're the one who's claiming that the work is necessary. I don't think it's necessary, and I'm not prepared to do it.

I've also already explained that I think you are attempting to set an impossible goal. Define what you think qualifies as a "Remain claim" and how you will decide whether or not that claim proved to be correct.

And that of the government's actions regarding Brexit in general, it would appear.

At least the response is consistent.

I am starting to wonder if Ceptimus is actually David Davis.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Firstly it was a bit of a lighthearted aside - and I provided the "could", but if you want to delve deeper.

The BBC article (had you actually read it) actually says:

Quote:

The United Kingdom imports the majority of the pork products we consume, from loins to bacon. With 17 months to go until we are due to leave the European Union, how will Brexit affect our pork?

It actually mostly focuses on the "plight" of the Danish pork producers and how they may struggle post-Brexit if the UK imports more pork from elsewhere (although as the article points out, it would likely have lower welfare standards than EU pork).

"plight" of the Danish pork producers and how they may struggle post-Brexit if the UK imports more pork from elsewhere (although as the article points out, it would likely have lower welfare standards than EU pork).

Yes, the British pig farmers in the fuller broadcast piece were at pains to say they didn't want standards to be lowered, as they provide a "quality product," although presumably there's an element of them not wanting to be undercut by meat produced to lower standards.

Yes, the British pig farmers in the fuller broadcast piece were at pains to say they didn't want standards to be lowered, as they provide a "quality product," although presumably there's an element of them not wanting to be undercut by meat produced to lower standards.

Within the EU this already happens our pig "animal welfare" standards are higher than say Denmark's.

Interesting point mentioned on PM tonight.
EU trade deals with various counties including Canada and Korea have clauses that say trade deals with other counties will not be on better terms.
So, either GB gets a worse or similar deal or a number of existing deals will have to be renegotiated.

Food is already “rotting in the fields” of East Anglia due to a shortfall of seasonal farm workers – making the vital supply of labour the most urgent issue to address for Brexit policymakers.

That was the message to Norfolk farmers from National Farmers’ Union deputy president Minette Batters as she spoke at the NFU county branch AGM at Easton and Otley College.

She said the NFU’s labour providers survey revealed a 29pc shortfall in seasonal workers for horticulture businesses in September, as the weakness of the pound and uncertainties over Brexit accelerated a trend which had been apparent five years earlier.

Who would have thought that it would have been a bad idea to vote to leave the EU when your business model relies on cheap seasonal labour from the EU?

Apologies to the farmers who voted Remain.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

I'm pretty sure it was pointed out before the referendum that some groups who were most in favour of Brexit would suffer the most from it, e.g. farmers and fishermen....

By me amongst others...

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

How odd that the government claims releasing these documents would weaken their negotiating position, surely revealing how brilliantly well our economy will do post Brexit will cow the EU into giving us a sweet deal?

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

There are several posts between it and yours, the phrase you quoted isn't contained within the portion of the article in Jimbob's post.

Now that you've (reluctantly) clarified the position, we can see the quote in context from the full article Jimbob linked to.

My apologies, it was contained in Jimbob's quoted piece. So looking at the quote in context....

Quote:

To underline the need for the re-introduction of a Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme, she said she visited employers including Fenland salad and vegetable growers G’s Group with Great Yarmouth MP and immigration minister Brandon Lewis.

“We knew five years ago that we would be facing a shortfall, but then we had Brexit and that massively exacerbates everything,” said Mrs Batters.

It's quite clear. They knew that there would be a problem with seasonal workers but the Brexit vote has made it worse. There are a number of reasons for this, uncertainty over immigration status, a fall in wages due to a drop in the value of the pound and increased hostility towards European migrant workers.

If Scotland ever actually had to pay their share, they'd doubtless invoke the Barnett formula: English taxpayers would provide about £9 billion to Scotland, and Scotland would then give about half of that to the EU, keeping the rest for themselves.

The unprecedented agreement was signed after the Record demanded that the leaders clearly explain what they are offering so the Scottish people can decide if it is a better alternative to independence.

The agreement was brokered by former prime minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour.

It will give Scots who remain unsure about separation complete confidence that, if there is a No vote, Scotland will still be given much more control over its future.

“So let us lock in three guarantees that will deliver the best deal for a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. The guarantees that we now have pave the way to the future – a great Scotland as a driving, successful and vibrant nation playing its full part in Great Britain.

Scotland a vibrant nation within the union.

But here is what they say when they are free to express their real beliefs

Originally Posted by Darat

It was sadly the "will of the people" - it is the UK that is a member of the EU so the referendum was a UK referendum.

Why you think it is somehow not the "will of the people" because a subset of the UK population voted in a particular way is beyond me.

Indeed you can probably find any kind of breakdown of percentages of leave v. remain you want by arbitrarily deciding to use a subset of the UK population.

Scotland an arbitrary subset of the UK population. The vibrant nation within the union, playing its full part, with control over its future, has completely vanished. If indeed it was ever there, except in the shameless propaganda touted by the unionist parties during the Indyref campaign.

The unprecedented agreement was signed after the Record demanded that the leaders clearly explain what they are offering so the Scottish people can decide if it is a better alternative to independence.

The agreement was brokered by former prime minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour.

It will give Scots who remain unsure about separation complete confidence that, if there is a No vote, Scotland will still be given much more control over its future.

“So let us lock in three guarantees that will deliver the best deal for a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. The guarantees that we now have pave the way to the future – a great Scotland as a driving, successful and vibrant nation playing its full part in Great Britain.

Scotland a vibrant nation within the union.

But here is what they say when they are free to express their real beliefs Scotland an arbitrary subset of the UK population. The vibrant nation within the union, playing its full part, with control over its future, has completely vanished. If indeed it was ever there, except in the shameless propaganda touted by the unionist parties during the Indyref campaign.

Yep in terms of a UK referendum using the geographical boundaries of Scotland is an arbitrarily chosen demarcation of voters. Can't see how anyone can disagree with this with that.

Which sums up why Scotland needs it's independence from people who can't even see that people might disagree.

You can't see that in regards to a UK wide referendum about something that determines the future of the entire UK it is the "will of the people" if a majority of the UK population vote in one particular way?

Yep in terms of a UK referendum using the geographical boundaries of Scotland is an arbitrarily chosen demarcation of voters. Can't see how anyone can disagree with this with that.

People who say the following can disagree with that.

It will give Scots who remain unsure about separation complete confidence that, if there is a No vote, Scotland will still be given much more control over its future.

“So let us lock in three guarantees that will deliver the best deal for a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. The guarantees that we now have pave the way to the future – a great Scotland as a driving, successful and vibrant nation playing its full part in Great Britain.

Because it turns out that in the U.K. Scotland is not anything at all, and its wishes in relation to the union constitution are of no more significance than the wishes of any arbitrarily chosen five million people. But that's not what we were told during the Indyref campaign, is it?

It also proves that if we wish to be anything at all we need to secure the appropriate powers. You have made clear that these are not available to us within the union. So be it.

It will give Scots who remain unsure about separation complete confidence that, if there is a No vote, Scotland will still be given much more control over its future.

“So let us lock in three guarantees that will deliver the best deal for a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. The guarantees that we now have pave the way to the future – a great Scotland as a driving, successful and vibrant nation playing its full part in Great Britain.

Because it turns out that in the U.K. Scotland is not anything at all, and its wishes in relation to the union constitution are of no more significance than the wishes of any arbitrarily chosen five million people. But that's not what we were told during the Indyref campaign, is it?

It also proves that if we wish to be anything at all we need to secure the appropriate powers. You have made clear that these are not available to us within the union. So be it.

You seem to be side stepping the actual point.

Someone apparently doesn't think it is the "will of the people" because a UK wide referendum had different results in different parts of the country.

I really cannot see how you can make that claim - no matter what subset of the UK you use - whether that be Scotland, Wales, NI, Birmingham, the NW England, Shetland or any other demarcation, the UK referendum returned leave as a result.

Can you explain how you get to a majority result not being the "will of the people" because in some places more people voted to remain than leave?

If you want to argue that overall less that 50% of the population eligible to vote voted to leave I can understand the point of saying it wasn't the will of the people, even though in the end if you don't bother to vote you really are excluding yourself from being counted.